Matthew Seligman’s new Slate piece. It’s also how he ends his own tweet-thread in response to Norm Eisen’s. Matthew and I agree on multiple points, one of which is his concern about what he calls “the Governor’s Gambit”–which as he writes is the “gravest threat” posed by the existing ECA: “if a swing state governor certifies a bogus slate of electors, and a single chamber of Congress—say, the hyper-partisan House—votes to count the bogus slate, then the bogus slate counts.”

I also agree with this broader point about “relative risk analysis”; as I just wrote in my own response to Norm’s concerns, are we better off with the existing ECA or with this new bipartisan bill? In my mind, this is not a close call; the 2024 presidential election would be in a far better position if the new bill, rather than the existing ECA, is in effect. Relatedly, as Matthew says in one his tweets that’s part of his thread: “the chances of a single governor defying a court order are much higher than the likelihood of both chambers of Congress acting lawlessly. Remember that the Senate rejected the objections in 2021 with 93 votes.”